User talk:Cloudy176/Department of bubbly negative numberbottles/SpongeTechX's old googology
The brain of googologist definitely can't be melted with just a lot of digits. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 17:25, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Lol, it was a figure of speech, Iko. But, I know what you mean. Brains cannot be melted by large numbers. Although, they can collapse into a black hole if they store too much information. XD Hey pal, you just blew in from stupid town?Talk page 17:30, October 26, 2013 (UTC) \(a1^2=4^2=16\), not \(8\). Note that \(a1=4=2^{2^1}\), and \((2^{2^n})^2=2^{2^n\cdot2}=2^{2^{n+1}}\), so heptacontarex is equal to \(2^{2^{26}}\). LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:02, October 26, 2013 (UTC) :Yet heptacontarex has over 20 million digits, so please don't load it here. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 19:50, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Eociration is equivalent to the triangle operator in Steinhaus-Moser notation. If you start with the number 256 and eocirate it 256 times, you'll get mega. FB100Z • talk • 21:45, October 26, 2013 (UTC) (reply to FB) Yes, it's really just a simpler way of saying it and doing it. :) Hey pal, you just blew in from stupid town?Talk page 22:13, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Btw, eocirating a number once is the same thing as exponentiating a number by itself. Hey pal, you just blew in from stupid town?Talk page 22:22, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Googoltion According to your page, you have wrong understanding of your googoltion. Image on that page suggests that googoltion is \(a^{b\uparrow\uparrow10^{100}}\), which is much, much smaller than \(a\uparrow^\text{googol}b=a\uparrow\uparrow ...\uparrow b\). Also, \(2\uparrow^\text{googol}2=4\). LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:09, October 28, 2013 (UTC) :Yes, and \(a\uparrow^\text{googol}b\) is not equal to E(a)1#1#1....1#1, that is equal to a. It is E(a)1#1#1....1#1#b with googol-1 1s Wythagoras (talk) 17:30, October 28, 2013 (UTC) : Alright, since I don't really understand that, I made up something more complex, like this. Could I use that for my page? ::I would recommend that you learn how Knuth up-arrows work - they're not that hard, and they produce MUCH larger numbers than the operation on your page. It's mandatory knowledge for a googologist. Deedlit11 (talk) 07:45, October 30, 2013 (UTC) Aarapex Aarapex is a number created by eociration. You can find it by eocirating kelopex one time. The equation of aarapex is'kpxkpx', and it's abbrevation is apx. Note: This is not SpongeTechX's number, it GoogleAarex's number and the idea. Hey aarex, I can make that a part of my googology and give you credit. Hey pal, you just blew in from stupid town?Talk page 22:41, October 29, 2013 (UTC) Ceosupex, Yrasupex, etc. Let function, f(n) is equal to 2 ✳ n+2. So ceosupex = f(f(1)), yrasupex = f(f(2)), ... Also ceohypex = f(f(f(1))), yrahypex = f(f(f(2))), ... Then ceomegex = f(f(f(f(1)))), yramegex = f(f(f(f(2)))), ... So there 16 numbers in ceopex series. This is my idea. AarexTiao 01:43, November 2, 2013 (UTC) Googol-taxar By the visual representation, I see that it is based on the chain googol \uparrow^{googol} googol \uparrow^{googol} googol \cdots googol \uparrow^{googol} googol (with n copies of "googol"), but we know that it could be expressed as googol \uparrow^{googol+1} n . As I counted, there are 4 levels of primitive recursion beyond the initial chain, so I believe that Googol-taxar is googol \uparrow^{googol+4} googol . Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 09:21, November 4, 2013 (UTC) Long time no see Wow, I hardly remember these! These make me laugh in a nostalgic way, haha. Good memories of when I first discovered the realm of googology. TechKon Talk page 22:31, December 9, 2018 (UTC) :Hope you enjoyed the collection! -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 16:28, December 10, 2018 (UTC)